Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday November 21, 2010 @08:19AM
from the but-reagan-was-a-fool dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Russia has agreed to cooperate with NATO on erecting a US-planned anti-missile network in Europe protecting the continent against possible ballistic missile attacks from Iran or elsewhere. The anti-missile coverage would be anchored by a US land- and sea-based deployment, reconfigured by Obama from earlier plans devised under the Bush administration. The new idea would be to link individual national missile defenses into the US network and place them all under a NATO command and control center with authority to respond to an attack. 'We see Russia as a partner, not an adversary,' says President Obama, hailing the NATO-Russian accord. President Dmitri Medvedev warned that Russia's cooperation must be 'a full-fledged strategic partnership between Russia and NATO' and not just a nod in Moscow's direction to spare Russian feelings while Europe tends to its own defenses in tandem with the United States."

A report [theaustralian.com.au] by an Australian news organization notes, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed yesterday to involve technicians in development plans, but did not make a commitment if it became operational and warned that Russia might decide against joining the US-led effort if it were not treated as an equal partner." Though Russia is assisting NATO, Russia is not necessarily committing to using the system.

That response by Russia should have raised suspicions about the Kremlin's actually sabotaging the des

"If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?"

Precisely, the Kremlin believes that they need a credible foreign threat to keep themselves in power. Truly cooperating with the West would remove that and they'd be left with defending their regime using the same yardsticks as democratic regimes.

There's an old urban legend - dating back to 90s - that Chechens have "backpack nukes" which they have already smuggled into large Russian citizens and wired up. Presumably when they feel things really are bad, they'll push the red button. So nothing new there.

In practice, given the modus operandi of Russian government in the Chechen wars, a more likely approach would be to give the Islamists nukes for real.

It's really curious in Poland in this regard - Russia is this old, sleazy entity not to be trusted. Somehow nobody mentions how we're the only ones who held Moscow/Kremlin for a few years. And of course popular understanding of partitions in XIX century omits how, on the Russian part, they were almost a personal union - until hardline feudal separatists frakked things up.

and because they want to know how it works and make sure the US system is connected so when they send a worm down the line, it takes everyone out of the loop. Putin still scares me and seems like he's too much like a James Bond villain than anyone out to do his people any good.

Worse, "President" Medvedev has accused the Europeans of using the shield to neutralize Russian nuclear missiles. If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?

Why not? They benefit from having it both ways. By contributing to the system, they gain access to valuable technology. And by being very standoffish about it, they'll be in a position to leverage bribes and other income off of even a basic working missile defense system.

That response by Russia should have raised suspicions about the Kremlin's actually sabotaging the design of the missile system. After all, if the Kremlin is not committed to using the system, why would the Kremlin bother to ensure that the system can actually work?

Obviously Russia would welcome the opportunity to study state of the art western missile defense systems without resorting to the fickle world of spies and informants. What better way to determine the capabilities of the system, and thus its weak

Because everybody knows it is really Vladmir Putin who runs Russia, and is Prime Minister to get around the consecutive term limits, and will run again for the Presidency, and win after Medvedev's term is up...

Everybody, meaning you? Yes, the PM does technically run the country, but president is so much powerful... Power in Russia changes hands very slowly. Putin got to his full power as a president only after a few years(reducing the remnants of Yeltsin's era)... Medvedev will acquire that power also, so it looks less and less likely for Putin to make a comeback.

I hope the designers of this system know what they are doing. A very obvious design goal would be to make it so that a computer virus loaded in one country couldn't shut down the ballistic missile defenses of another. After all, if one country writes most of the software they could easily insert back doors to allow them to shut down any node of the system at will.

Heck, this system will uses lots of RF antennas for input (such as the tracking radars)...a good back door could be triggered remotely, so long as you were running the same firmware revision as before. So even if you cut the cables linking the control centers together, one country could still remotely disable the defenses of another.

Heck, this system will uses lots of RF antennas for input (such as the tracking radars)...a good back door could be triggered remotely, so long as you were running the same firmware revision as before. So even if you cut the cables linking the control centers together, one country could still remotely disable the defenses of another.

So, all the individual nations' missile defense systems will now be linked into a single network? Have these leaders read the news about 'cyber' warfare and how it's starting to pick up? It would seem that creating an electronic pathway from other nations should raise concern for the security of one's own defenses. Prior to a physical attack, it would be convenient to knock out the missile defenses of your adversary and this network now provides that conduit...

It is good to see such international cooperation on a global issue. Russia's foreign policy positions seem to contrast with what was accomplished at the summit; I wonder what the sentiment about this settlement is in Russia. The next question is if this network can be expanded beyond NATO. Imagine a network which protected Asia, Oceania, and Africa as well. Whether that is politically possible or not is in question, but I believe with enough time we could see the day. Or everyone could nuke each other with

The only global cooperation here is the willingness for the global military industrial complex to bleed the taxpayer dry. The 'ballistic' missile shield is completely useless against cruise missiles. Now you have stealth cruise missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, long range cruise missiles, their now planning long range hypersonic cruise missles, so really who is kidding who here.

Russia is only willing to play the game for the opportunity to start selling it's technology into Europe, likely that is part of the behind the scenes bargain struck with the western military industrial complex.

Why spend billions on a 'ballistic' missles shield that is completely useless against ground hugging cruise missiles, especially when every country is in the process of shifting technology that way. What is this, some kind of lying bullshit way to squeeze profits out of what is rapidly becoming pointless technology, can't afford social welfare but can afford a broken multi billion dollar missile shield.

Why spend billions on a 'ballistic' missles shield that is completely useless against ground hugging cruise missiles, especially when every country is in the process of shifting technology that way.

Having a unified ballistic missile defense system does not preclude having defenses against cruise missiles.

And why pray-tell is "every country" shifting away from ballistic missiles? Ahh... yes, because it is possible to detect and defend against them with some kind of ballistic missile defense that has been developed and implemented across much of the world.

As for why Russia is "playing the game', it is because they are no longer the great enemy - the Soviet Union. They are now a country that wishes to

The shift from targeted ballistic to cruise is because cruise is more cost effective, you can pretty much deploy at ten to one ratio. Especially taking into account multiple targeting options, same engine used with different types to enhance speed or range, anti ship and anti ground targets and of course high export income opportunities. Dramatically extend the range by fitting them to ships, planes and submarines and all fired outside of defence zones.

The only global cooperation here is the willingness for the global military industrial complex to bleed the taxpayer dry. The 'ballistic' missile shield is completely useless against cruise missiles. Now you have stealth cruise missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, long range cruise missiles, their now planning long range hypersonic cruise missles, so really who is kidding who here.

Not to mention orbital weapons platforms, thermonuclear or even just inertial (put a guidance system on a rock and drop it from high orbit.) It's a hell of a lot harder to hit an object that's coming from space. Are such already in place? I have no idea, but I do know that a lot of Shuttle missions were black. Probably just surveillance or communications equipment, but who knows.

Resource distribution only short-term, when taking large amounts of energy and land from the past (stored in fossil fuels) or the future (spoiling the surroundings). We are above this 2.1, on average [wikipedia.org]

The Warsaw pact is dead, former members are now part of NATO, Russia is generally friendly. NATO has never been used for it's actual role (defending members), but has been used outside of this scope, unjustly IMO (in the Yugoslavian civil war).

Perhaps it could become a looser partnership, less black and white, instead of being disbanded entirely.

That is simple. NATO today is effectively a framework for a military alliance of the Western states. Not all of them are in it, but if you look closely even non-members usually cooperate, and e.g. NATO equipment standardization agreements have scope that is broader than NATO itself.

The missile interceptors around and inside Moscow have been since the 70-es. The first missile defence treaty specified that existing systems are to stay. While USA have barely managed to get theirs working for a couple of months in 1975, the Russians have managed to deploy, improve and maintain theirs ever since.

Except that system is not as rosy as you make it.
The thing used(may still use them) nuclear warheads and one of the layer was a total saturation of the area where the missile is calculated to be in.
This is far from what the USA has been attempting to do with small explosion next to the incoming attack.

Well, it uses fairly low yield warheads and at 20km+ intercept altitude. While not elegant it is a typical russian engineering solution: "Do not force it, use a LARGER hammer".Do not forget - it was designed for WW3. At a moment when EMP has broken all lose from USA and USSR nuking each other into a glass lake who cares about a couple of extra sub-10K nukes.Also, the newer interceptors are not nuclear armed and they are also supplemented by S300 at a lower altitude which can also intercept warheads (or at least is rumoured to) at least on par with Aegis and Patriot if not even better.All in all, compared to what US has got it is probably by up to 10 years ahead.

Right, but due to the ABM treaty (which GWB pulled out of) the US and USSR were only allowed *one* location to be protected by an ABM system. The SU picked Moscow, and the US picked some base in BFE, North Dakota, from what I recall.

Slightly different from a country or continent wide "shield", in that it hardly tips the balance of MAD, even if the system is 100% effective.

You do realize that the agreement that was just signed simply ties the current and future European systems (Dutch, German, and Spanish SM-3; German-US-Italian MEADS; French SAMP/T; and US SM-3s in Eastern Europe) to the current and future US sensor network? And you realize that the current network already ties in mobile THAAD batteries, SM-3 equipped AEGIS Cruisers and Destroyers (US and Japanese), and the GBI bases in Alaska and California?

And that the whole thing is in it's simplest form a giant systems integration problem, one similar to what the US has already done?

More likely we need Russia on line to defend against the only country likely to be a powerful near future military adversary.... China (and possibly North Korea). Iran doesn't have what it takes.

Pakistan will be running on US funds for the foreseeable future and will be no threat to anyone but itself.

Terrorists use bombs, not intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I tend to agree. If there's a World War III, and it is fought with nuclear missiles of one kind or another, there's a possibility it will start between Russia and China. They share a huge border, and they go back a ways. It wouldn't hurt Russia to be on-board with us so far as deterrent and mutual defense are concerned. Russia may eventually end up becoming an ally. How does the old saw go? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Of course, it would probably be cheaper just to smuggle a few hundred tactical

Interesting, you just showed a new use for long-term storage in banking safety deposit boxes.

That, and a business opportunity for any company that can come up with a anti-nuclear-device safety-deposit-box scanning system for banks. Now, it doesn't have to actually work, you understand, but it helps if it looks like it does.

An option to automatically generate nude images of bank patrons would be a definite plus.

I believe, China won't try to start a war.1. they are not fundamentalists2. they already built their economy to work with the western economies.

They cannot afford a war and they know it. Only "small" fundamentalist states not integrated into the world would try to start something. North Korea, Iran and possibly Pakistan if taken over by the Taliban.

I believe, China won't try to start a war.1. they are not fundamentalists2. they already built their economy to work with the western economies.

If by chance those in power are threatened with an internal democratic movement, similar to the Tienanmen Square incident, which could put them out of power, they may be tempted to start a fake or forced war as a distraction. Fundie or not, people in power will often do anything to keep that power.

I don't think that's true, China's leadership nowadays is quite rational. There's a strong show of support for increased freedoms and civil liberties there, but the problem is how do they introduce that without the country caving in and possibly making China a massive battleground of civil war and bloodshed? If they blanket introduce the kind of freedoms people have in the West then it'll open the door for massive violent revolt in places like the Tibetan and Xinjang provinces. This is why China is resistin

It may have been a work of fiction but the scenario in the Tom Clancy book "The Bear and The Dragon" involving the Chinese invading parts of Russia to steal the land and natural resources is not beyond the relm of possiblity if China finds that it doesn't have enough natural resources of its own.

Russia has incredibly low population density, for its resources - in fact, lower than the average of the planet. Whole planet, including oceans and Antarctic.

(that might mean the "stuff" could start happening mostly around their territory; and Russia probably still prefers to orient itself at least more with Europe than with China, of which this story might be an example - especially considering how China seems to be able to work better with Muslim world and large part of Africa)

Ironic though.
Here we have the one country that was supplying the Islamic Republic with missile technologies and nuclear capability, and now it is going to join NATO in defending against the same? Must truly be nice to be able to play both sides of the fence and "win" on each ($$$ from Iran and defense from NATO)...
jerry

Actually, you have it totally wrong. Iran is a Shia country, they don't believe in a caliphate, they believe in Velayat-al-Faqih. That's not a threat to Europe, since Iran formed theirs via democracy in their constitution.

Bin Laden wants a caliphate, but that's not why he ordered terrorist attacks. He said so himself in his videos, he wants the US out of "Muslim lands" so they can get rid of their dictatorships and thus let the people form a caliphate.

wow; How the f**k did you get modded up?
The korean war was started when North Korea invaded South Korea.Vietnam war was North Vietnam invading South Vietnam.Iraq war (desert storm I) was caused because Iraq invaded kuwait.And afghanistan taliban absolutely were supporting and hiding OBL and AQ when we went in there.

Now, W DID invade Iraq and yes, I agree that we should not have (and I believe that W/Cheney should have charges brought against them for Iraq). BUT, all of the ones that you mention shows me that about the only bigot here is you. Calling this Christian is a joke. America is composed of many religions. OTH, AQ/Taliban/etc are composed of exactly one religion.

With Korea and Vietnam it's basically moot and arbitrary anyway - back then each side was just as bad as the other. But one was on "our side"...

(Taliban is of course even better, with us supporting them for a long time specifically to destabilize the region / Soviet-supported governing entity...which we now support ourselves; and don't forget how US ambassador essentially gave a green light for Iraqi invasion of Kuwait)

There are threats, alright. There are threats out there that are destabilizing that region, and the whole world. Primarily, the United States and Israel.

"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But that cannot be the motive. The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth -- unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them. The purpose of th

Sure there a threats -- but the US spends more money on threats then the rest of the world combined. Somebody is being taken for a ride -- that would be the US tax-payer.

Surely there is a more cost-effective way to address threats, in the same way that you don't need to build an interstate highway for two or three cars. The US military is gratuitously over-expensive. There is no need to spend so much money.

We are already there. Chinese leaders have been in a cold war with the west for 20 years. The west has been hoping to avoid it, but they are not. Keep in mind that when a nation avoids all of their treaties obligations(free their money, quit dumping, quit subsidizing, open trade by 2004 via Clinton and IMF/WTO; Put pollution control on ALL Of their power plants by 2003 with Japan and South Korea; etc. etc. ), then they are for all intents and purposes in a cold war.

Earth to you, it the U.S. that is the biggest occupier and war-monger-for profit on the planet. It is the U.S. who occupies Japan and many other nations we use as bases to project power globally (which neither Russia nor China do)

Earth back to you. The U.S. is losing money from fighting these wars, not making it.
And we inject a massive amount of money into the local economies wherever we have a base, and happily restrict the military members stationed on the base from leaving their barracks the second the locals want us to. (Source for that last point: I wasn't allowed off base in Spain because some moron fought a local months before I got there.)

Hey, I am ALL FOR US pulling out of Japan and South Korea. Of course, japan, south korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and even India would oppose that To be honest, it was nearly ALL of asian gov. that BEGGED USA to join in the Asian pact. In fact, when the last Japanese leaders wanted us off of Okinawa, we started to explore pulling out of Japan, then the populace voted out those leaders, and voted in some that would keep America in Japan.

You are totally correct. If the Russians actually get any technical access to this missile-defense system, its value drops tremendously.

The President needs to ask himself, what actually changed in 1991? The Russians lost a little territory on the western frontier and some allies in the same area. They were temporarily weakened a bit. As far as I can tell, nothing else actually changed, except the intelligence services replaced the CPSU as the governing instrument.

The President needs to ask himself, what actually changed in 1991? The Russians lost a little territory on the western frontier and some allies in the same area. They were temporarily weakened a bit. As far as I can tell, nothing else actually changed

Uhh, I don't even know where to begin here.

A "little territory"? Relative to Soviet Union, Russia has lost 30% of its territory, and over half of population.

Weakened "a bit"? Have you looked at the Russian economy lately (and ever since Gorbachev's reforms)? Do you realize that everything that Russian military is armed with today was designed and developed in the USSR, with very few exceptions that are usually produced in minuscule quantities? That its manpower comes primarily from conscripts, the majority

Actually, compared to China, Russia is a LOT freer. It is possible to vote another party in there.

Well, yes, you get exactly two notable parties to vote - Putin's one, and communists. Everything else are fake single issue parties which either officially support Putin in anything and everything. Any real opposition party or figure other than the commies is denied participation in the elections on various legal reasons (the favorite one is to declare most signatures in support of the candidate as fake).

Then also there's the issue of counting the votes, and don't even get me started there. According to off

It protects the Russian, US and EU's military industrial complex from a lack of hi tech jobs and cash flow issues over the next generation.
Iran will be pushed into more revolutions via NGO's, twitter again.
Israel is well protected via its own efforts and what it can buy/find/collect on the world market.
If anyone wanted to use a missile, buy one that works or if thats too expensive, use the cash in emerging non missile areas.